"Predicting 2 zones of ~8m @ 5-10 g/t Au (upper HW very low Cu-Zn, lower higher Cu-Zn in the Gap Lode position) in LTRD001... not a bad result but not enough to move the needle. Only after the orthogonal holes into the Fw (ie E-W azi) being drilled in Dec will SHN be able to confirm a new feeder zone theory."I agree with your thesis that obviously VMS deposits are complex, the geology is complicated, and different structures and controls/zones have different geochemistry and the feeder zone theory is still untested or definitely not proven yet.
Your sections I have pasted here - 50m either side of 403000mE just illustrate how variable and unpredictable grade continuity is in these VMS systems.
But on other sections that you showed there was decent continuity but sometimes a bit "skinny".
Your comments about the drill core photos and the nature of the oxidation were only picked up by you and I found them very useful. The area is almost over-drilled on some sections and under-drilled on most others, and this is typical of exploration over time where different drill holes test different theories. As the story gets more complex and drilling turns up further surprises it's sometimes easy to fall into a geological rabbit hole (and you can see this in some of the sections you have presented) with geologists almost resorting back to 2D thinking and "brute force" sectional drilling before they want to go off and drill in the third dimension.
Ignore the complaints from the peanut gallery, your posts are geologically informative, and their criticisms remind me of that "Too many notes" scene in the movie Amadeus. Its a junior exploration company drilling a complex VMS-style deposit, and discussions around geology are really the only thing that will affect the results and interpretations. Whether you hold the stock or not does not affect what the rocks look like in photographs, and what the drill hole assays are. You have been generous enough to share your geological reasoning and suggest a possible outcome for the future results.
Further drilling will follow next year and results from the lab soon, if the results are similar to what you have suggested might be the case this will be a useful thread for illustrating that one informed specialist's opinion can be much more useful than a large crowd of emotional/flamy/but geologically ignorant people. Judging by some of the comments here - some of the posters possibly don't even seem to know the difference between true width and apparent width, or claim gleeful ignorance of such things, so they are going to become "baggies" when investing in mineral explorers, especially when the geology is VMS - which is the most difficult and very much an unpredictable high-risk high-reward type of exploration. Maybe not here at SHN at this time, as SHN does have great rocks and good potential, but maybe in the future with some more dodgy exploration companies.
The funny thing here is that all you have suggested is something that even Damien Keys would admit is an alternative and interesting theory and set of observations, that might be more or less similar to his own and may evolve with more information, and both theories can get invalidated by the next round of drilling and results.
(20min delay)